As AI models become ever more complex and intertwined in humans' daily lives, greater levels of interactivity of explainable AI (XAI) methods are needed. In this paper, we propose the use of belief change theory as a formal foundation for operators that model the incorporation of new information, i.e. user feedback in interactive XAI, to logical representations of data-driven classifiers. We argue that this type of formalisation provides a framework and a methodology to develop interactive explanations in a principled manner, providing warranted behaviour and favouring transparency and accountability of such interactions. Concretely, we first define a novel, logic-based formalism to represent explanatory information shared between humans and machines. We then consider real world scenarios for interactive XAI, with different prioritisations of new and existing knowledge, where our formalism may be instantiated. Finally, we analyse a core set of belief change postulates, discussing their suitability for our real world settings and pointing to particular challenges that may require the relaxation or reinterpretation of some of the theoretical assumptions underlying existing operators.

The field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly recognizing the need to personalize and/or interactively adapt the explanation to better reflect users' explanation needs. While dialogue-based approaches to XAI have been proposed recently, the state-of-the-art in XAI is still characterized by what we call one-shot, non-personalized and one-way explanations. In contrast, dialogue-based systems that can adapt explanations through interaction with a user promise to be superior to GUI-based or dashboard explanations as they offer a more intuitive way of requesting information. In general, while interactive XAI systems are often evaluated in terms of user satisfaction, there are limited studies that access user's objective model understanding. This is in particular the case for dialogue-based XAI approaches. In this paper, we close this gap by carrying out controlled experiments within a dialogue framework in which we measure understanding of users in three phases by asking them to simulate the predictions of the model they are learning about. By this, we can quantify the level of (improved) understanding w.r.t. how the model works, comparing the state prior, and after the interaction. We further analyze the data to reveal patterns of how the interaction between groups with high vs. low understanding gain differ. Overall, our work thus contributes to our understanding about the effectiveness of XAI approaches.

Complex sequential decision-making planning problems, covering infinite states' space have been shown to be solvable by AlphaZero type of algorithms. Such an approach that trains a neural model while simulating projection of futures with a Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm were shown to be applicable to real life planning problems. As such, engineers and users interacting with the resulting policy of behavior might benefit from obtaining automated explanations about these planners' decisions offline or online. This paper focuses on the information within the Monte Carlo Tree Search data structure. Given its construction, this information contains much of the reasoning of the sequential decision-making algorithm and is essential for its explainability. We show novel methods using information theoretic tools for the simplification and reduction of the Monte Carlo Tree Search and the extraction of information. Such information can be directly used for the construction of human understandable explanations. We show that basic explainability quantities can be calculated with limited additional computational cost, as an integrated part of the Monte Carlo Tree Search construction process. We focus on the theoretical and algorithmic aspects and provide examples of how the methods presented here can be used in the construction of human understandable explanations.

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) guide users on how to adjust inputs to machine learning models to achieve desired outputs. While existing research primarily addresses static scenarios, real-world applications often involve data or model changes, potentially invalidating previously generated CFEs and rendering user-induced input changes ineffective. Current methods addressing this issue often support only specific models or change types, require extensive hyperparameter tuning, or fail to provide probabilistic guarantees on CFE robustness to model changes. This paper proposes a novel approach for generating CFEs that provides probabilistic guarantees for any model and change type, while offering interpretable and easy-to-select hyperparameters. We establish a theoretical framework for probabilistically defining robustness to model change and demonstrate how our BetaRCE method directly stems from it. BetaRCE is a post-hoc method applied alongside a chosen base CFE generation method to enhance the quality of the explanation beyond robustness. It facilitates a transition from the base explanation to a more robust one with user-adjusted probability bounds. Through experimental comparisons with baselines, we show that BetaRCE yields robust, most plausible, and closest to baseline counterfactual explanations.

We share observations and challenges from an ongoing effort to implement Explainable AI (XAI) in a domain-specific workflow for cybersecurity analysts. Specifically, we briefly describe a preliminary case study on the use of XAI for source code classification, where accurate assessment and timeliness are paramount. We find that the outputs of state-of-the-art saliency explanation techniques (e.g., SHAP or LIME) are lost in translation when interpreted by people with little AI expertise, despite these techniques being marketed for non-technical users. Moreover, we find that popular XAI techniques offer fewer insights for real-time human-AI workflows when they are post hoc and too localized in their explanations. Instead, we observe that cyber analysts need higher-level, easy-to-digest explanations that can offer as little disruption as possible to their workflows. We outline unaddressed gaps in practical and effective XAI, then touch on how emerging technologies like Large Language Models (LLMs) could mitigate these existing obstacles.

For many use-cases, it is often important to explain the prediction of a black-box model by identifying the most influential training data samples. Existing approaches lack customization for user intent and often provide a homogeneous set of explanation samples, failing to reveal the model's reasoning from different angles. In this paper, we propose AIDE, an approach for providing antithetical (i.e., contrastive), intent-based, diverse explanations for opaque and complex models. AIDE distinguishes three types of explainability intents: interpreting a correct, investigating a wrong, and clarifying an ambiguous prediction. For each intent, AIDE selects an appropriate set of influential training samples that support or oppose the prediction either directly or by contrast. To provide a succinct summary, AIDE uses diversity-aware sampling to avoid redundancy and increase coverage of the training data. We demonstrate the effectiveness of AIDE on image and text classification tasks, in three ways: quantitatively, assessing correctness and continuity; qualitatively, comparing anecdotal evidence from AIDE and other example-based approaches; and via a user study, evaluating multiple aspects of AIDE. The results show that AIDE addresses the limitations of existing methods and exhibits desirable traits for an explainability method.

Systematic literature reviews are the highest quality of evidence in research. However, the review process is hindered by significant resource and data constraints. The Literature Review Network (LRN) is the first of its kind explainable AI platform adhering to PRISMA 2020 standards, designed to automate the entire literature review process. LRN was evaluated in the domain of surgical glove practices using 3 search strings developed by experts to query PubMed. A non-expert trained all LRN models. Performance was benchmarked against an expert manual review. Explainability and performance metrics assessed LRN's ability to replicate the experts' review. Concordance was measured with the Jaccard index and confusion matrices. Researchers were blinded to the other's results until study completion. Overlapping studies were integrated into an LRN-generated systematic review. LRN models demonstrated superior classification accuracy without expert training, achieving 84.78% and 85.71% accuracy. The highest performance model achieved high interrater reliability (k = 0.4953) and explainability metrics, linking 'reduce', 'accident', and 'sharp' with 'double-gloving'. Another LRN model covered 91.51% of the relevant literature despite diverging from the non-expert's judgments (k = 0.2174), with the terms 'latex', 'double' (gloves), and 'indication'. LRN outperformed the manual review (19,920 minutes over 11 months), reducing the entire process to 288.6 minutes over 5 days. This study demonstrates that explainable AI does not require expert training to successfully conduct PRISMA-compliant systematic literature reviews like an expert. LRN summarized the results of surgical glove studies and identified themes that were nearly identical to the clinical researchers' findings. Explainable AI can accurately expedite our understanding of clinical practices, potentially revolutionizing healthcare research.

The growing AI field faces trust, transparency, fairness, and discrimination challenges. Despite the need for new regulations, there is a mismatch between regulatory science and AI, preventing a consistent framework. A five-layer nested model for AI design and validation aims to address these issues and streamline AI application design and validation, improving fairness, trust, and AI adoption. This model aligns with regulations, addresses AI practitioner's daily challenges, and offers prescriptive guidance for determining appropriate evaluation approaches by identifying unique validity threats. We have three recommendations motivated by this model: authors should distinguish between layers when claiming contributions to clarify the specific areas in which the contribution is made and to avoid confusion, authors should explicitly state upstream assumptions to ensure that the context and limitations of their AI system are clearly understood, AI venues should promote thorough testing and validation of AI systems and their compliance with regulatory requirements.

In the past decade, we have experienced a massive boom in the usage of digital solutions in higher education. Due to this boom, large amounts of data have enabled advanced data analysis methods to support learners and examine learning processes. One of the dominant research directions in learning analytics is predictive modeling of learners' success using various machine learning methods. To build learners' and teachers' trust in such methods and systems, exploring the methods and methodologies that enable relevant stakeholders to deeply understand the underlying machine-learning models is necessary. In this context, counterfactual explanations from explainable machine learning tools are promising. Several counterfactual generation methods hold much promise, but the features must be actionable and causal to be effective. Thus, obtaining which counterfactual generation method suits the student success prediction models in terms of desiderata, stability, and robustness is essential. Although a few studies have been published in recent years on the use of counterfactual explanations in educational sciences, they have yet to discuss which counterfactual generation method is more suitable for this problem. This paper analyzed the effectiveness of commonly used counterfactual generation methods, such as WhatIf Counterfactual Explanations, Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanations, and Nearest Instance Counterfactual Explanations after balancing. This contribution presents a case study using the Open University Learning Analytics dataset to demonstrate the practical usefulness of counterfactual explanations. The results illustrate the method's effectiveness and describe concrete steps that could be taken to alter the model's prediction.

Despite explainable AI (XAI) has recently become a hot topic and several different approaches have been developed, there is still a widespread belief that it lacks a convincing unifying foundation. On the other hand, over the past centuries, the very concept of explanation has been the subject of extensive philosophical analysis in an attempt to address the fundamental question of "why" in the context of scientific law. However, this discussion has rarely been connected with XAI. This paper tries to fill in this gap and aims to explore the concept of explanation in AI through an epistemological lens. By comparing the historical development of both the philosophy of science and AI, an intriguing picture emerges. Specifically, we show that a gradual progression has independently occurred in both domains from logical-deductive to statistical models of explanation, thereby experiencing in both cases a paradigm shift from deterministic to nondeterministic and probabilistic causality. Interestingly, we also notice that similar concepts have independently emerged in both realms such as, for example, the relation between explanation and understanding and the importance of pragmatic factors. Our study aims to be the first step towards understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the notion of explanation in AI, and we hope that our findings will shed some fresh light on the elusive nature of XAI.